74 
1 frighten the public. Thus, every move the scientists 
2 made to protect the public and allay its fears had the 
3 opposite effect. With the development of biological 
4 containment even more fear was engendered, since 
5 previously physical containment was adequate for the 
6 most dangerous organisms known. Special containment 
7 certainly meant special hazards. 
8 Discussion of risk assessment experiments 
g even led to a lawsuit in one instance. The scientists 
10 were caught in an enormous Catch 22 , and put on the 
11 defensive, and somewhat bewildered, especially since 
12 there wasn't a tangible hazard in sight. Peer review 
13 broke down, and the current NIH guidelines were 
14 motivated, I oelieve,. more by politics than by science. 
15 The controversy itself was indeed establishing 
16 the existence of hazard. It was in fact the very hazard 
17 itself. A somewhat remarkable illustration of this point 
18 is contained in a letter from Mr. Peter Hutt of Covington 
19 & Burling to Dr. Gilbert Omenn of the OSTP. He is talking 
20 invocation of PHS- 361 . "With specific reference to 
21 research on recombinant DHA molecules," he says, "the 
22 question has been raised whether there is sufficient 
23 danger of communicable disease to justify invocation of 
24 Section 361 . If indeed, there is no significant possibility 
25 of this occurring, it is difficult to understand why the 
[166] 
